AuthorTopic: Possible Rope video (2012) (Read 107688 times)

Tim -- Doesn't it seem odd to you that what you are calling the antenna wire/cable is so prominent in the 2010 image (an obvious thin, black line) and it's so very vague in the 2012 image? Frankly, I don't see the cable/wire at all in the 2012 image.

Another discrepancy ... In the 2012 image, there is a relatively flat, featureless area in the background (at the top of the image) beyond the object you have labeled as the landing gear tire. In the 2010 image, the area around this "tire" is filled with lumpy, bumpy rocks and coral debris. There's no sign of the flat, featureless area in the 2010 image.

I don't see any obvious matches in the bottom features between the two imgaes. The wire/cable is clearly visible in the 2012 image; I don't see it at all in the 2010 image. It's not at all convincing to me these two images show the same piece of ocean floor.

Jeff P.

Jeff P., as to your last point, you are absolutely correct. The attached shot about one second later removes the ambiguity for me. Thank you for pointing this out. The HF antenna can be seen, of course, higher in the photo before it disappears under the rubble.

This covers your first point as well, because I think you have mixed up which is 2010 and which is 2012. They are reversed.

On the flat featureless area: alot of plankton can fall in two years time interval, and I think the angle makes it difficult to tell. This is why I have asked Ric to provide us additional material from the 2012 video that covers the 20 meters of slope below where the "alleged" landing gear sits.

Tim -- Yes, in my comment about the visibility of the cable/wire, I obviously goofed and had my references to the two images reversed. I meant to say, "The cable/wire in the 2012 image is very distinct; the cable/wire in the 2010 image is not very distinct at all." Thank you for pointing out this mistake in my post.

Your additional comments, after pointing out my mistake above, still don't provide convincing answers to my points. Your hypothesis regarding the plankton "snow" is very creative, but you are grossly over-stating the deposition rate of the bottom layer created by this "snow". It is nowhere near large enough to cover up rocks in just two years. If you extrapolate your suggested deposition rate over the 70+ years the Electra pieces would have been sitting there, how could you be seeing anything of the Electra? The parts would have been completely buried by this plankton "snow" layer.

Regarding the "antenna cable" in the 2010 image, you have now simply changed your label of the "antenna cable" to another thin black line visible in the image. You say this new "cable" disappears under the coral rubble near the top of the image; that's why the thin black line abruptly ends near the top of the image. Apparently all the cable running toward the bottom of the image was also buried in the 2010 image, as we only see a short length of the thin black line in this image.

Then in the 2012 image we see the cable/wire running completey across the image from left to right. Almost this entire length is completely visible in 2012. Explain to me how this could have happened. Some event (or events) happened between 2010 and 2012 to jerk this long section of the cable out from under the rock and coral debris, making the cable completely visible in the 2012 image. Yet you say there was the gentle "snow" of plankton falling between 2010 and 2012 which covered up rocks which projected at least several inches upward from the ocean bottom. How are both of these situations possible? Seems to me something which would have rearranged the bottom enough to take the cable from almost completely covered in 2010 to completely uncovered in 2012 would have also disturbed this layer of plankton "snow."

In previous posts you have tried to use relative sizes of objects to support your opinions that these are pieces of Electra wreckage. Let's see how that works in comparing your 2010 and 2012 images which you claim show the same Electra wreckage in the same place.

In the 2010 image, you have labeled a straight line which you propose is the opening in the rudder for the trim tab. On my computer screen, the length of this line (roughly between your "top" and "bottom" labels for the trim tab opening) measures about 3.5 cm. Also in the 2010 image, the width (diameter) of the "antenna" cable/wire measures about 0.1 cm on my computer screen. Therefore, the ratio of length of trim tab opening to diameter of the cable is 3.5/0.1 = 35.0.

Make the same measurements in the 2012 image. The length of the trim tab opening is about 2.0 cm. The diameter of the cable, measured closest to the trim tab opening, is about 0.15 cm. (The cable diameter measures even larger than this in other parts of the 2012 image.) Therefore, the ratio of trim tab opening length to cable diameter is 2.0/0.15 = 13.3.

Therefore, relative sizes of trim tab opening and "antenna" cable diameter simply don't match between the two images you say show the same exact area of ocean bottom.

I can see other mismatches between the 2010 and 2012 images:

(1) In the 2012 image, there is a good sized rock right next to the "top" end of the trim tab opening. The rock extends upward from the ocean bottom, out of the plane of the image, toward the camera. Where is this largish rock in the 2010 image? I cerainly don't see it.

(2) In the 2010 image, the distance between the straight line defining the trim tab opening and the nearest edge of the tire feature is about equal to the length of the trim tab opening. In the 2012 image, the distance between trim tab opening and tire is larger than the length of the trim tab opening.

So, I still say the 2010 and 2012 images are not of the same piece of ocean bottom.

So, I still say the 2010 and 2012 images are not of the same piece of ocean bottom.

Jeff, I cannot believe you don't understand that angle and distance from camera to objects don't affect the percieved and measurable lengths! Especially when one object, like the antenna in the 2012 shot is much nearer the camera than the trim tab slot. You simply cannot judge 3D relationships with 2D rulers.

As to the rocks moving, etc.: This is a dynamic area; things keep falling down the cliff face. Who knows what trembles an ancient valcano can produce? In another post I already mentioned that the fuselage section near the WC had tipped to the left in the interim.

And I already said the snow effect may be largely due to angle of camera shot. If we had pictures in 2012 from below the gear, it might look entirely different. We will probably never have exactly comparable pictures. That's life.

Richie, this item is just outside the pilot's side window: I think it is the guide for the movable pane which deflected the airstream when the pilot's window was open. It has been bent down against the fuselage.

As Ric mentions, there is a wealth of photos out there - it's a matter of chasin down this kind of detail among them.

Jeff N., is this the normal way a control cable is attached?

Tim,

What I can see fits within the possibility in terms of apparent cable and fitting 'bulk'.

What I cannot make out for certain, so far, is exactly what kind of fittings we may be seeing here, and there are a number of possibilities. I'll try to dig deeper into this picture - and will try to find out more about the kind of cable hardware Lockheed was using on the L10 when NR16020 was built. Bob Lanz has been researching that because we realize if aircraft cable is found then we at least need to know that the type of hardware found is eligible or not.

My belief has been that "AN" terminals were around then, but Bob raised some legitimate doubts - which could still leave similar sized "tuck and splice" or soldered terminal splices also in use at the time, or possibly "nico-press" - which are noticeably more bulky.

I'd like to look into the prospect more deeply and will. If there is a broken-up airplane there then for sure there is the possibility of cable being laid out as we see here, well agreed, if the galvanized steel can last that long - another thing to consider, IMO. It may well, just not certain.

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.